To: All Rcvd: NO Re: What aeon Considers Una Status: Public myrddin!nbn!sgiblab!swrinde!cs

From: James J. Lippard Sent: 04-26-94 10:51
To: All Rcvd: -NO-
Re: What _aeon_ Considers Una Status: Public
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Path:
myrddin!nbn!sgiblab!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!usc!nic-nac.CSU.net!news.Cerritos.e
u!news.Arizona.EDU!skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu!lippard
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: What _Aeon_ considers unacceptable
Organization: University of Arizona
Message-ID: <25APR199423155557@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>
Date: 25 Apr 1994 23:15 MST
To give readers of sci.skeptic and talk.origins an idea of what was
unacceptable to _Aeon_ in the work of Leroy Ellenberger, what follows is
an unpublished section of his memoir of the Velikovsky affair, "Of Lessons,
Legacies, and Litmus Tests: A Velikovsky Potpourri." This section was a
piece of part one--the only part to be published, in _Aeon_ III:1
(pp. 86-105)--but was deleted from the published version of the article
over the author's objections.
This is being posted with Ellenberger's approval.
talk.origins readers: note the references to pro-Velikovsky work in
the _Creation Research Society Quarterly_ and by Thomas Barnes of the
Institute for Creation Research (his infamous "magnetic field decay"
argument).
MAGNETISM, DYNAMOS AND NEPTUNE
The acid test of any scientific theory is, first and foremost, its
agreement with the _facts_ of the physical world.
Roger S. Jones, _Physics as Metaphor_
The fact that there are unsolved problems within the framework of an
existing theory does not of itself imply that the theory must be thrown
away, or replaced by another; unsolved problems are the essence of
science, the means by which theories are refined.
John Maddox, _Nature_, 17 April 1986
For years Velikovsky and his supporters, _e.g._, Lynn Rose in "The
Censorship of Velikovsky's Interdisciplinary Synthesis" (_Pensee I_,
reprinted in _Velikovsky Reconsidered_), claimed that at close distances
electromagnetic forces could rival if not dominate gravity. Most
critics simply denied this. Velikovsky's intuition on this point is not
borne out, not even in his oft-repeated example of a 7000 gauss magnetic
binary star. Using generous assumptions, James W. Warwick has shown
that for this example gravity overwhelms magnetism by a factor of over a
billion. Warwick's remarks to this effect were prepared for the
Velikovsky symposium at McMaster University in 1974, but were deleted
from the reading and the paper was never published. To my knowledge,
not one supporter in over 30 years ever bothered to test Velikovsky's
intuition on this point. Gardner's 1952 remark that there is no
evidence for the _power_ of the electromagnetic forces required by
Velikovsky is still valid. All this and more are explained in my
articles in KRONOS X:1, X:3, & XI:1 and _Aeon_ II:2, especially pp. 62-
63.[1]
In several issues of _Aeon_ (I:2, I:6 and II:2) Charles Ginenthal has
disputed the relevance of Warwick's calculation. Ginenthal seems to
think that since no real magnetic binary stars match the hypothetical
example therefore the calculation has no meaning. Such a viewpoint is
completely wrong-headed. Warwick's calculation is correct, as reported
in KRONOS X:3. Clearly, Ginenthal has not the foggiest notion of what
he is talking about. Any real binary star with greater separation,
greater masses or lower magnetic field strengths serves merely to
increase the advantage of gravity over magnetism. It does not mean that
such pairs are absent because magnetism has pushed them apart so that
now we do not see binary pairs matching the specifications of the
hypothetical example.
In 1976, J. C. Keister, a professor of physics, published "A Critique
and Modification of Velikovsky's Catastrophic Theory of the Solar
System" (_CRSQ_ 13, pp. 6-12). He cited Ransom and Hoffee in _Pensee
III_ and Rose and Vaughan in _Pensee VIII_ and, taking a cue from D. W.
Patten, proposed interchanging Venus and Mars in the sequence of orbits
in order to reduce the energy disposal problem. Bass suggested the same
thing at the Glasgow Conference in 1978 and at San Jose, CA in 1980.
When Patten's specific model was finally analyzed by me in _C&AH_ XII:1
& 2 (1990) in terms of angular momentum and orbital energy, it was found
incapable of conserving both quantities.
The most valuable aspect of Keister's paper was his calculations
showing the relative power of gravitational, electrostatic, and magnetic
forces. Making most favorable case assumptions for Venus, Earth, and
Mars, Keister showed that during near collisions the ratio of
electrostatic to gravitational forces is about 0.02, and for magnetic
and gravitational forces about 0.003. Considering the content of
Keister's paper, it is disappointing that his results did not influence
discussions in KRONOS and _SISR_ in the 1970s and early 1980s.[1a] In
_SISR_ III:2, Keister collaborated with Andrew Hamilton of the S.I.S.
for an article on the origin of Venus in a Velikovskian context.
Another misconception held by many supporters of Velikovsky is that
he deserves credit for priority in claiming a role for electromagnetic
forces in the solar system. This is one claim in Ferte's "A Record of
Success" in _Pensee I_ and is implicit in the Epilogue to _Stargazers_
(p. 338) which was written by Kogan.
At the PSA meeting at Notre Dame in November 1974, M. W. Friedlander
challenged Velikovsky on this issue of priority by citing the work of
Hannes Alfven and others discussed in Alfven's _Cosmical
Electrodynamics_ (Oxford, 1950). On January 14, 1975 Lynn Rose wrote to
Friedlander in defense of Velikovsky on the narrow issue of the date of
Alfven's book. Friedlander's reply on January 18 pointed out that while
Alfven's book was published in 1950, the Preface was written in 1947.
Friedlander concluded with "I think that it is clear that Stormer,
Alfven and various other authors whose papers appeared through the
1930's, are the scientists who correctly receive the credit for opening
up this field. Neither by priority of publication, nor by quantitative
calculations, nor by scientific usefulness, can Velikovsky's writings be
considered to merit any serious consideration in this matter."
_Terrestrial Magnetism and Electricity_, edited by J. A. Fleming, is
a book cited several times by Velikovsky which discusses the pioneering
efforts in cosmical electrodynamics of several scientists in the late
19th and early 20th centuries. But Velikovsky never acknowledged these
precursors (KRONOS XI:1, p. 109).
* * *
No topic in the Velikovskian and related catastrophist literature has
been subject to more misunderstanding, confusion, and outright
misrepresentation than the origin of planetary magnetic fields. Despite
the well-established fact that a dynamo process is the _only_ known way
to generate Earth's magnetic field, the dynamo continues to be ridiculed
and rejected by many writers. The behavior of the Earth's field over
time, which entails more than merely a secular decrease in the dipole
component, can be explained _only_ by fluid motions _in the core_.
Regardless of these readily accessible facts, the core dynamo is
rejected by many, including: Ralph Juergens in _Pensee II_, Thomas
Barnes in _SISR_ II:2 (1977), Peter Warlow in _SISR_ III:4 (1979) and
_The Reversing Earth_ (1982), J. M. McCanney in KRONOS X:2 (1985),
Charles Ginenthal in _Aeon_ I:1, D. W. Patten in _C&AH_ IX:2 (1987) and
_Aeon_ II:3 (1990), and Samuel Windsor in _Aeon_ II:4 (1991). Martin
Kruskal tried to correct Juergens' unfounded prejudices against the
dynamo in _Pensee III_, but Juergens was intransigent and Kruskal's
tutorial had no lasting effect.
Concerning the source of planetary magnetic fields, D. J. Stevenson
reports "typically, a non-dynamo mechanism cannot produce global fields
in excess of 10^-2 gauss..."; see S. F. Dermott (ed.), _The Origin of
the Solar System_ (Wiley, 1978), p. 404. By comparison, the mean
surface fields of Earth and the Jovian planets range (in gauss) between
0.133 for Neptune and 4.28 for Jupiter with Earth being 0.308 (_Physics
Today_, July 1990, pp. 40-47). No one who rejects the dynamo in favor
of various electric charge models discusses this limitation.
Many, including Sanford, Velikovsky, Juergens, and Warlow, have
latched on to the "rotating charge" concept in place of the dynamo.
Warlow in his book (at p. 44) is entirely correct in stating "it is a
known phenomenon that a charged rotating body will produce a magnetic
field." However, he is absolutely wrong when he then states: "This
possible mechanism is _seldom discussed_ [emphasis added] in the
conventional literature because it does not accord with a dominant
assumption in astronomical studies that cosmic bodies are electrically
neutral....The rotating charge concept cannot, therefore, be dismissed
as a possible mechanism for the production of the Earth's field."
The "rotating charge" concept most certainly _can_ be dismissed as a
possible mechanism for the production of the Earth's field for the
simple reason that the field so produced, although being a dipole, does
not conform to the observed geomagnetic field. This fact was explained
in 1939 by A. G. McNish in Ch. VII of J. A. Fleming (ed.), _Terrestrial
Magnetism and Electricity_, drawing upon the work of Arthur Schuster in
_Proc. Phys. Soc._ 24 (1912), pp. 121-137, and W. F. G. Swann in
_Philosophical Magazine_ 24 (1912), pp. 80-100. Although Velikovsky
cited McNish in _Worlds in Collision_, _Earth in Upheaval_, and _Cosmos
Without Gravitation_, he evidently chose to ignore the substance of
McNish's exposition in baldly asserting in _Cosmos_: "The cause of the
earth's magnetic field is in (1) the magnetic field of the sun, and (2)
the rotation of the charged earth around its axis" (p. 18). This same
idea was mentioned in "Celestial Mechanics and Cosmic Catastrophes," the
Appendix to _Worlds in Collision_ that had been deleted in early
February 1950.[2] Even after 1950 Velikovsky's blindspot persisted. In
his unpublished Einstein memoir _Before the Day Breaks_ he wrote "The
magnetic field of the earth, the origin of which is a mystery, would be
a direct effect of a charged body in rotation...."
In addition, Warlow created the impression of a false dichotomy
between the dynamo and the rotating electrical charge. In point of
fact, these are only two of at least twelve theories that have been
proposed to explain planetary magnetic fields; see such references as
Tsuneji Rikitake, _Electromagnetism and the Earth's Interior_ (Elsevier,
1966), pp. 13-19; W. D. Parkinson, _Introduction to Geomagnetism_
(Elsevier, 1987), pp. 105-109; and D. J. Stevenson, "Planetary
Magnetism," _Icarus_ 22 (1974), pp. 403-415. The simple truth of the
matter, as Stevenson states, is "that the dynamo mechanism is the most
satisfactory theory for maintenance of the Earth's magnetic field." The
other eleven hypotheses have been rejected because of their fatal flaws.
Of the rotating electric charge theory, Parkinson writes:
For the case of a uniform surface charge it turns out that the
external field is a dipole, but the magnitude of the charge needed
is 0.14 coul m^-2. The electric field at the surface of the earth
associated with this charge density would be more than 10^9 volts
m^-1, well above the field required for a spark discharge! The
actual normal field on the earth's surface is about 100 volts
m^-1. Attempts have been made to devise more elaborate charge
distributions, but the conductivity of the earth is sufficient
that any charge on the solid earth would very quickly be
distributed as a surface charge.
To be sure, the dynamo has problems, including the lack of accurate
data on the properties of the core and the extreme computational
complexities involved in modelling dynamo processes; but such problems
do not negate the fact that the dynamo is the _only_ feasible way to
produce Earth's magnetic field. The flagrant and repeated
misrepresentation of this elementary fact by Velikovsky, Random, Warlow,
Ginenthal and many others seriously underines the scientific integrity
of Velikovskian studies in general and the scientific competence of the
particular participants.
Barnes, whose work is cited by Patten, is a leading exponent of the
notion that the geomagnetic field is decaying irreversibly at an
exponential rate whose half life is about 1,400 years. As G. Brent
Dalrymple explains in _J. Geol. Ed._ 31 (1983), pp. 123-133, "Barnes is
wrong, and has ignored or misrepresented much of the data on the earth's
magnetic field." Barnes and Patten confound the total field with the
dipole portion. "The measurements which indicate that the dipole field
is decreasing, also indicate that the non-dipole field is increasing,"
so that "the total field energy external to the core has remained about
constant." (Dalrymple's arguments against Barnes are also related by
Stephen G. Brush in Laurie R. Godfrey (ed.), _Scientists Confront
Creationism_ (New York, 1983), pp. 73-77.)
Good discussions of dynamo processes are in the August and September
1983 issues of _Scientific American_. More technically oriented are the
papers by D. J. Stevenson _et al._ in _Icarus_ 54 (1983), pp. 466-489
and David Gubbins, "Observational constraints on the generation process
of the Earth's magnetic field," _Geophys. J. R. astr. Soc._ 47 (1976),
pp. 19-39.
* * *
In _Aeon_ I:1, Charles Ginenthal presented his "electro-gravitic
theory of celestial motion" which encompasses planetary magnetic fields
and eschews core dynamos. To his credit, he had the courage of his
convictions to use his "theory" to predict Neptune's magnetic field as a
"crucial experiment": "...the author estimates its [Neptune's] field to
be 0.0002 (1/5000) that of Earth..." or 0.308 gauss/5000 equals
0.0000616 gauss. So confident of this prediction was he, that he
repeated it in _Aeon_ I:6, p. 107.
Voyager II measured Neptune's magnetic field in August 1989. The
results appeared in N. F. Ness _et al._, 15 December 1989 _Science_, pp.
1473-77. Neptune's mean surface field is 0.133 gauss, or 0.133/0.308 =
0.432 that of Earth, or about 7000 times greater than Ginenthal
predicted. This result has been available for over a year. Yet, in
_Aeon_ II:4 Ginenthal rambles on for several pages about the perils of
making predictions but somehow never gets around to revealing the truth
about the failure of his prediction and, hence, of his theory.
C. T. Russell, a geophysicist at U.C.L.A., has presented a scaling
law for planetary magnetic moments using dynamo theory which indicates
that they are proportional to the product of spin rate, square root of
core density, and fourth power of core radius (_Nature_ 281, 18 October
1979, pp. 552-3). Using Earth's dynamo as a reference and ratioing with
Saturn's parameters, Russell predicted Saturn's equatorial field to
within 25%, 0.5 gauss versus 0.4 gauss observed.
Russell's scaling procedure overestimates the magnetic fields for
Uranus and Neptune by a bit more than an order of magnitude when the
radius of the conducting mantle is substituted for the radius of the
core. In Uranus and Neptune, the dynamo operates in the mantle instead
of the core. However, the geometry is the same as for Earth since
Earth's dynamo operates in the spherical annulus of the outer fluid core
which surrounds the solid core at the center. Using the procedure to
estimate the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune, I obtained 2.7 gauss
and 4.2 gauss, respectively, compared to the measured fields of 0.23
gauss and 0.133 gauss, respectively. These results indicate over-
estimates of 12x and 32x for Uranus and Neptune, respectively.
Considering how accurate it was for Saturn, perhaps this larger variance
is due to the dynamos in Uranus and Neptune operating in the lower
mantles so that using the mantles' outer radius contributes to high
results. The differences between a core dynamo and a mantle dynamo may
also lead to a field with a greater tilt and off-set from true axial
alignment which also contribute to a smaller magnetic field than
indicated by the scaling procedure. Whatever the actual reasons for the
variance, Russell's procedure shows that the dynamo model is on firmer
theoretical ground than the arm-waving kinds of models promulgated by
such as Ginenthal and Patten.
Footnotes
[1] Velikovsky harbored several erroneous notions about magnetism, some
of which are discussed in KRONOS X:3, pp. 12-15, especially his
conceiving of a magnet as an amplifier whose power grows "stupendously"
as the cube of decreasing distance. Such preposterous expectations
belie the rationalization offered by some defenders in correspondence
that Velikovsky's interest in magnetism was merely axiomatic, _i.e._,
that it did not necessarily rival gravity in interactions between
massive bodies, as opposed to charged particles. However, magnetic
fields that "cushion" planetary collisions, as Velikovsky claimed, are
_not_ axiomatic.
[1a] Furthermore, since Keister's work was featured by me in KRONOS X:3,
pp. 14-15, it has still not influenced discussions in the Velikovsky
literature. Keister's results coupled with the observations above in
"Lessons in Fallibility" underscore the commonplace understanding in
physics that gravity dominates electricity in interactions between
massive bodies such as planets because it is impossible to emplace
enough net electric charge on a body to rival gravity. Nevertheless, in
_Aeon_ I:4, Robert B. Driscoll proposed a qualitative model for the
polar configuration in which like electrical charge on Saturn and
Jupiter counter-balanced their gravitational attraction. Driscoll's is
a most unsatisfactory presentation because he did not demonstrate the
feasibility of his model by quantifying the various parameters. Until
he does so, his model is not any better than a cartoon demonstrating
"Roadrunner physics." It is difficult to give credence to Driscoll's
model because the electrical charge required to equal the gravitational
attraction is 8.9 x 10^16 coulombs which is about 400,000 times more
electric charge than Saturn can possibly hold, namely, 2.2 x 10^11
coulombs. Another contradictory point is that Driscoll assumes the
electric charge is produced by the planets interacting with a
"Forshufvud cloud" whose existence is contradicted by the present states
of Saturn and Jupiter (KRONOS XI:1, p. 107), _i.e._, the jovian planets
are too cold now to have been capable of producing such a "cloud" so
recently. Finally, Driscoll has not shown that his fission model of
core ejection is capable of producing a "Forshufvud cloud" with the
requisite mass, namely, 94 Earths. Since there is no reason based on
physics to believe that electric charge can do what Driscoll and the
Saturnists wish, Ashton's criticisms in _Aeon_ I:3 have not been
circumvented, contrary to Driscoll's explicit intention.
[2] Contrary to _Stargazers_, p. 78, the Appendix was not replaced by "a
few sentences in the Epilogue, which can be read on page 387..." because
the final page or so of the Appendix's nine pages (pp. 381-389) was used
in the Epilogue: p. 387 bottom five lines, p. 388, and p. 389 top two
lines. Discrepancies such as this serve to undermine the overall
veracity of _Stargazers_.
Jim Lippard Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721